This is very suitable here in this forum and paints views with EVERYONE here hence we can never see eye to eye. It paints kinsers view UNLESS he can provide proof behind his prophecy of course, otherwise it reminds me of Eric. I will wait and see. I hope he is far more grounded.

This is very suitable here in this forum and paints views with EVERYONE here hence we can never see eye to eye. It paints kinsers view UNLESS he can provide proof behind his prophecy of course, otherwise it reminds me of Eric. I will wait and see. I hope he is far more grounded.

Good one. There is absolute truth, at the least with mathematical and physical laws and the all-powerful dialectic.

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.

This is very suitable here in this forum and paints views with EVERYONE here hence we can never see eye to eye. It paints kinsers view UNLESS he can provide proof behind his prophecy of course, otherwise it reminds me of Eric. I will wait and see. I hope he is far more grounded.

Good one. There is absolute truth, at the least with mathematical and physical laws and the all-powerful dialectic.

(05-19-2019, 11:11 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: I see the 2010s as an absolute waste of a decade. Not only was I screwed over by the actions of older generations, I'll be screwed over by my own generation because a lot of the ideas they have are ideas I think are moronic and mean spirited that I'll be forced to live under. Then later on I'll be blamed for my generation's actions even though I didn't agree with the whole consensus. This is a big joke. Good thing my bloodline ends with me. I hate this world for forcing me to be born in this era. If I have to suffer through policies I don't like I'll be very mean and unpleasant the entire 1T and 2T to spite the world for forcing me to live under policies I hate. I was forced to be born under a mob I disagree with and forced to be screwed over by the older policies too. I can't help but feel incredible anger towards the universe.

No-one can force beliefs and ideas upon you. I certainly can't, or anyone on the forum. I think you are entitled to keep your own council and opinions. I think it's wise to be open to new ideas, and to the possibility that you may be mistaken in some of your opinions. In MY opinion, there is much in the millennial generation to admire, including their ability to see the need for collective social and government action. They see more clearly than older generations the severe threat of climate change and pollution and the need for broad action. They see more clearly that wealth and resources are poorly distributed among the people, and that our system favors the fortunate few and keeps the rest shackled. Millennials may have the courage to take action together. They are often resentful of greater wealth and power held by boomers and other older people, and want new leadership. Of course, most of the liberal trend among millennials can be attributed to their greater racial and ethnic diversity.

I notice some millennials may have poor anger and impulse control. They may be too inclined to denial of spiritual realities at times. There is a trend toward repression of sexuality abroad today (but it's good to restrain males who take advantage of women). Civic generations may be collegial and great at networking, but perhaps more conformist in some ways too. Their appreciation of and contribution to culture may be shallow at times, though at other times quite talented. But these are all generalities, and no generation is composed of folks who are all the same. There are always generation members who go in opposite directions to the leading trends among them. So best of luck to you in that capacity.

This is very suitable here in this forum and paints views with EVERYONE here hence we can never see eye to eye. It paints kinsers view UNLESS he can provide proof behind his prophecy of course, otherwise it reminds me of Eric. I will wait and see. I hope he is far more grounded.

My comment wasn't so much a prediction, as it was a statement of fact. Immigrants (legal or otherwise) bring their problems with them. Disarming the population while at the same time importing people from high corruption and high crime countries will inevitably lead to the most criminal and most corrupt being the most armed.

Like I said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. It was true when Benjamin Franklin said it, it is still true today.

This is very suitable here in this forum and paints views with EVERYONE here hence we can never see eye to eye. It paints kinsers view UNLESS he can provide proof behind his prophecy of course, otherwise it reminds me of Eric. I will wait and see. I hope he is far more grounded.

My comment wasn't so much a prediction, as it was a statement of fact. Immigrants (legal or otherwise) bring their problems with them. Disarming the population while at the same time importing people from high corruption and high crime countries will inevitably lead to the most criminal and most corrupt being the most armed.

Like I said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. It was true when Benjamin Franklin said it, it is still true today.

Sacrificing liberty...what if I were to say that the people here were given the liberty to vote if they wanted this law to take place? What f I were to say that disarming from certain guns being legal does not mean the people are still not armed? Why do reds in USA believe that disarming means the people are not protected with guns? They still are. Yes I will hear you are not AS armed as you were in your country, but can you tell me why those sorts of guns are necessary for regular folk and can you tell me in what real life situations is it appropriate to have those sorts of guns? I rather real life situations just as you do of course.

Tara...I personally don't care about whatever tyranny the people of New Zealand are willing to accept. You guys can turn your country into an Orwellian Nightmare (like the Brits are doing), I simply won't go there. Here, however, we simply will not tolerate being so disarmed. It is an American thing and nearly impossible to explain to someone who isn't an American--and quite a few who are (though in their case I think they are being deliberately obtuse).

This is very suitable here in this forum and paints views with EVERYONE here hence we can never see eye to eye. It paints kinsers view UNLESS he can provide proof behind his prophecy of course, otherwise it reminds me of Eric. I will wait and see. I hope he is far more grounded.

My comment wasn't so much a prediction, as it was a statement of fact. Immigrants (legal or otherwise) bring their problems with them. Disarming the population while at the same time importing people from high corruption and high crime countries will inevitably lead to the most criminal and most corrupt being the most armed.

Like I said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. It was true when Benjamin Franklin said it, it is still true today.

Sacrificing liberty...what if I were to say that the people here were given the liberty to vote if they wanted this law to take place? What f I were to say that disarming from certain guns being legal does not mean the people are still not armed? Why do reds in USA believe that disarming means the people are not protected with guns? They still are. Yes I will hear you are not AS armed as you were in your country, but can you tell me why those sorts of guns are necessary for regular folk and can you tell me in what real life situations is it appropriate to have those sorts of guns? I rather real life situations just as you do of course.

People voting to take away my freedom is the same to me as a politician doing it to me. You shouldn't get to vote away fundamental rights in the name of Democracy. 1979 Iran was Democracy. Look how that went!

(05-22-2019, 04:42 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: People voting to take away my freedom is the same to me as a politician doing it to me. You shouldn't get to vote away fundamental rights in the name of Democracy. 1979 Iran was Democracy. Look how that went!

Ok so no logical reason given then other than this? Btw very interesting this is called tyranny when people wanted this. I will wait for a better reasoning and if it does not appear, then I can draw my conclusions.

(05-22-2019, 06:38 AM)taramarie Wrote: Ok so no logical reason given then other than this? Btw very interesting this is called tyranny when people wanted this. I will wait for a better reasoning and if it does not appear, then I can draw my conclusions.

I think the reason you likely won't get the type of answer you're looking for is because it doesn't exist. What role Americans and Kiwis will tolerate from their governments are decided culturally and not logically. American culture will not tolerate gun control beyond registration. Not to mention that much going beyond that can run afowl of the constitution--and Trump has made it a point to appoint Strict Constructionists.

That being said, I believe it highly illogical to ban a tool because someone used it to commit a crime.

I certainly won't be turning in my weapons any time soon. And anyone coming to take them by force will end up with a face full of lead. But then again the main forces behind gun control in the US were the same as those that kept my people first in chain and then segregated into ghettos.

(05-20-2019, 11:44 PM)taramarie Wrote: his is very suitable here in this forum and paints views with EVERYONE here hence we can never see eye to eye. It paints kinsers view UNLESS he can provide proof behind his prophecy of course, otherwise it reminds me of Eric. I will wait and see. I hope he is far more grounded.

My comment wasn't so much a prediction, as it was a statement of fact. Immigrants (legal or otherwise) bring their problems with them. Disarming the population while at the same time importing people from high corruption and high crime countries will inevitably lead to the most criminal and most corrupt being the most armed.

Like I said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. It was true when Benjamin Franklin said it, it is still true today.

Many of the illegal immigrants are running from problems that others imposed upon them -- like weak governments that could not keep the drug gangs out of the country, gangs well funded with money gotten from American addicts. The countries in which narco-traffickers have taken refuge become arenas for near-civil-wars between drug gangs. The people fleeing through Mexico would just as soon stay home and farm a small plot of land or work in some cottage industry... but the drug traffickers replete with cash and utterly devoid of any semblance of morality make such modest desires irrelevant if any community is for all practical purposes a war zone between rival drug lords.

The money comes from the consumption habits of American addicts. A long-term solution is to ease American addicts off drugs, and a short one is to do what the British do -- prescribe the drugs to addicts and have the drug users take their drugs in a clinical setting so that troublesome drugs do not have a profitable market. Meanwhile addicts get the opportunity for drug rehab.

Part of liberty is security. We need formal protections from an all-powerful state, and we all need to watch the police forces to keep them responsible. We also need to suppress blatant crime, and communities unable or unwilling to do so need different governments.

This said, governments have gotten the burden, since the Great Depression, to foster prosperity. The Great Depression was enough to crack the shaky democracy in Germany that people then failed to recognize was the difference between war and peace in Europe. Demagogues have always offered easy solutions to economic messes -- often destructive ones (like drive out the Jews, Chinese, or South Asians before they can take their property, and spread 'their' wealth among the masses) that prove destructive. Clear and well-respected title to property is obviously essential to a prosperous society that can avoid central planning.

Today I could make a slight modification to Franklin's quip:

those who sacrifice liberty for economic gain or feeling good about themselves deserve neither liberty, prosperity, nor self-esteem.

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.

Or perhaps what the US could do is completely legalize the drugs trade and take it out of the hands of the criminals. Given the choice between Pablo Escobar the crime boss and Pablo Escobar the CEO I'd take him as a CEO instead. He'll just take you to court rather than cutting off your head with a chainsaw.

Much like prohibition of alcohol, prohibitions of narcotics doesn't work. But that is neither here nor there.

My point, PBR since you obviously missed it yet again. is that third world people bring with them their third world problems and that first world states cannot easily address the needs of their own populations much less the the needs of a huge influx of third worlders. Or did you expect that the lack of desire for hordes of immigrants in this country sprung out of a vacuum.

(05-22-2019, 06:38 AM)taramarie Wrote: Ok so no logical reason given then other than this? Btw very interesting this is called tyranny when people wanted this. I will wait for a better reasoning and if it does not appear, then I can draw my conclusions.

I think the reason you likely won't get the type of answer you're looking for is because it doesn't exist. What role Americans and Kiwis will tolerate from their governments are decided culturally and not logically. American culture will not tolerate gun control beyond registration. Not to mention that much going beyond that can run afowl of the constitution--and Trump has made it a point to appoint Strict Constructionists.

That being said, I believe it highly illogical to ban a tool because someone used it to commit a crime.

I certainly won't be turning in my weapons any time soon. And anyone coming to take them by force will end up with a face full of lead. But then again the main forces behind gun control in the US were the same as those that kept my people first in chain and then segregated into ghettos.

Actually no this is what I have said for some time now. That it is gun culture and that constitution. Reading this from an American just proves that what I have said is pretty valid. Thank you.

(05-22-2019, 12:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: My point, PBR since you obviously missed it yet again. is that third world people bring with them their third world problems and that first world states cannot easily address the needs of their own populations much less the the needs of a huge influx of third worlders. Or did you expect that the lack of desire for hordes of immigrants in this country sprung out of a vacuum.

That's always been true, yet the US had open door policies in the past and Canada still does. Both gained from the practice, so what's your point here?

Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.

(05-22-2019, 12:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: My point, PBR since you obviously missed it yet again. is that third world people bring with them their third world problems and that first world states cannot easily address the needs of their own populations much less the the needs of a huge influx of third worlders. Or did you expect that the lack of desire for hordes of immigrants in this country sprung out of a vacuum.

That's always been true, yet the US had open door policies in the past and Canada still does. Both gained from the practice, so what's your point here?

The US had an open door policy when it lacked a welfare state and it worked out okay because 2 out of 3 immigrants went back to where they came. An open door policy now will decimate the welfare state. As for Canada, they are a full election cycle behind the US. I expect Trudeau (unemployable former substitute drama teacher that he is) to be tossed out on his ass and a Trump like figure to emerge there.

We have a choice we can have a welfare state, or we can have an open door policy. It seems that the American nation wants a welfare state of some degree and as such we cannot, indeed must not, have open door immigration policy.

(05-22-2019, 12:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Or perhaps what the US could do is completely legalize the drugs trade and take it out of the hands of the criminals. Given the choice between Pablo Escobar the crime boss and Pablo Escobar the CEO I'd take him as a CEO instead. He'll just take you to court rather than cutting off your head with a chainsaw.

Drugs ruin lives. Such is the rationale for prohibitions of heroin, cocaine, meth, Quaalude, PCP, etc. Or child pornography.

Just because something is profitable does not mean that it is acceptable. I suspect that if someone came up with an entertainment in which live people cast live persons into an aquarium with tiger sharks, crocodiles, or polar bears (maybe even leopard seals) there would be paying customers, just as there were for people watching Christians being fed to "lions and tigers and bears, oh my!") in ancient Rome.

Quote:Much like prohibition of alcohol, prohibitions of narcotics doesn't work. But that is neither here nor there.

I have seen people messed up on drugs. It could be that people with problems often gravitate to drugs, and people would be far wiser to turn to something else -- like classical music. Maybe if our economic system and medical system worked better we would not have so many people dependent on opiates and meth. Oh, our economic order works well at making people already filthy rich even more filthy rich because such is the only objective of our economic elites. No human suffering can ever be in excess so long as the economic elites get what they want?

That will crash, if not this 4T then in the next 4T when those elites are brittle targets as the seas start inundating prime farmland and reducing food supplies. If this 4T does nothing to resolve the extreme inequities of our society, then I can easily imagine this country going down a route parallel to that of the Soviet Union except for being plutocratic instead of 'socialist'. Most important it will be devoid of human values, and it will be able to get people to work only with brutality because people will get few rewards for their efforts. The image of America around AD 2080 will be the drunks and dopers. Productivity will fall to meet the low level of real pay. The old Soviet joke

"We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"

will apply.

Quote:My point, PBR since you obviously missed it yet again. is that third world people bring with them their third world problems and that first world states cannot easily address the needs of their own populations much less the the needs of a huge influx of third worlders. Or did you expect that the lack of desire for hordes of immigrants in this country sprung out of a vacuum.

Cultural differences? The bulk are from Latin America, culturally more similar to the United States than much of Europe. It is a Spanish base instead of an English base... so what? Do you have a problem with East Asian or South Asian people in America? I'd be delighted to exchange our dopers for more of them -- wouldn't you?

Bringing their problems with them? Many seem to have not done so. Most seem to want to fit in, with the exception of those Muslims who want to bring jihad with them. Anyone who wants jihad can go back home.

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.

Have to say after thinking about it I agree with kinser about legalizing drugs. Once legalized it would take the power out of criminals hands, it could regulate how drugs are produced, the money would go elsewhere....not to criminals or at least not as much and less people in prison for non violent crimes. People will get hold of drugs either way, at least make it so the criminals don't profit and so there are standards put in place for how the drugs are produced and sold. Unless someone has another thought about this of course?

(05-22-2019, 12:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Or perhaps what the US could do is completely legalize the drugs trade and take it out of the hands of the criminals. Given the choice between Pablo Escobar the crime boss and Pablo Escobar the CEO I'd take him as a CEO instead. He'll just take you to court rather than cutting off your head with a chainsaw.

Drugs ruin lives. Such is the rationale for prohibitions of heroin, cocaine, meth, Quaalude, PCP, etc. Or child pornography.

Just because something is profitable does not mean that it is acceptable. I suspect that if someone came up with an entertainment in which live people cast live persons into an aquarium with tiger sharks, crocodiles, or polar bears (maybe even leopard seals) there would be paying customers, just as there were for people watching Christians being fed to "lions and tigers and bears, oh my!") in ancient Rome.

Quote:Much like prohibition of alcohol, prohibitions of narcotics doesn't work. But that is neither here nor there.

I have seen people messed up on drugs. It could be that people with problems often gravitate to drugs, and people would be far wiser to turn to something else -- like classical music. Maybe if our economic system and medical system worked better we would not have so many people dependent on opiates and meth. Oh, our economic order works well at making people already filthy rich even more filthy rich because such is the only objective of our economic elites. No human suffering can ever be in excess so long as the economic elites get what they want?

That will crash, if not this 4T then in the next 4T when those elites are brittle targets as the seas start inundating prime farmland and reducing food supplies. If this 4T does nothing to resolve the extreme inequities of our society, then I can easily imagine this country going down a route parallel to that of the Soviet Union except for being plutocratic instead of 'socialist'. Most important it will be devoid of human values, and it will be able to get people to work only with brutality because people will get few rewards for their efforts. The image of America around AD 2080 will be the drunks and dopers. Productivity will fall to meet the low level of real pay. The old Soviet joke

"We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"

will apply.

Quote:My point, PBR since you obviously missed it yet again. is that third world people bring with them their third world problems and that first world states cannot easily address the needs of their own populations much less the the needs of a huge influx of third worlders. Or did you expect that the lack of desire for hordes of immigrants in this country sprung out of a vacuum.

Cultural differences? The bulk are from Latin America, culturally more similar to the United States than much of Europe. It is a Spanish base instead of an English base... so what? Do you have a problem with East Asian or South Asian people in America? I'd be delighted to exchange our dopers for more of them -- wouldn't you?

Bringing their problems with them? Many seem to have not done so. Most seem to want to fit in, with the exception of those Muslims who want to bring jihad with them. Anyone who wants jihad can go back home.

Hardly doubt many want to turn to that when they have issues. They want to tune out of life more often than not. I suffer cptsd. I took pain meds till it sent me to hospital where I nearly died. Just one example.

(05-23-2019, 12:52 AM)taramarie Wrote: Have to say after thinking about it I agree with kinser about legalizing drugs. Once legalized it would take the power out of criminals hands, it could regulate how drugs are produced, the money would go elsewhere....not to criminals or at least not as much and less people in prison for non violent crimes. People will get hold of drugs either way, at least make it so the criminals don't profit and so there are standards put in place for how the drugs are produced and sold. Unless someone has another thought about this of course?

Let me give an example of how legalizing drugs worked in one producing country. Its name is Turkey and at one time produced nearly all the heroin that the US consumed. It was able to do this because no other crop paid farmers as much money as the opium poppy did and Turkey is really good at growing opium poppies. Like Coca in Peru or Bolivia it was litterally grow this crop or not have enough money to live on.

At the time the crop was illegal, and well guess who ran the collection of the illegal crop? The Italian Mafia which then sold it to their American Cousins. This is well documented for anyone who wants to check it out. They either called it the French Connection (as they used Marseilles as a hub, or the Pizza connection because the Italian-American Mafia used pizzerias as their cover businesses for this).

Well to deal with the illicit trade Turkey could go out and harass farmers and arrest people and basically spend tons of cash for no real effect...or it could try something completely radical. It could legalize growing the poppies, and then offer the production to pharmaceutical companies.

When Turkey legalized growing the poppies Bayer took over as the main purchaser, offering as much as the mafia did (and often more to compete with them), all completely legal and taxed, and they produced many life saving drugs with it.

Simply put prohibition has never worked, and will never work. The fact that PBR deliberately refuses to see the absolute and utter failure of this policy either indicates insanity or stupidity or both.

==

As for the differences between Latin Americans and Anglo Americans it is immaterial. I don't want ANY foreigners in the US. I don't care where they come from.